Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption

[trouble13]

That's precisely the problem with this - they are operating as an arm of the State and being funded by Jewish, Muslim and Atheist taxpayers. That is precisely what the First Amendment was crafted to prevent.

No that isn't what the 1st A protects against. It protects the state from proclaiming an official state religion. That's not.what giving funding to a faith based orphanage is.

What im more interested in knowing is if the children have a choice to be placed in other orphanages if they are against being placed in a Christian environment. I think that would be a bigger problem than denying some couple the ability to adopt because they are Jewish.

 

[Court Jester]

Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.

First of all the process BEGINS with foster care services for the child, just at the article indicated. Foster care is first and foremost to attempt to place a child with the child's best interests being the priority, to be balanced of course with what is the "best available fit" with adults who may be available. What that means is that sometimes considerations are to be less about what potential foster or adoptive parents want, and what is best for the well being of the child. This consideration is applied all the time for example to minority children, American Indian children, and children born to other than Christian or Jewish parents. It should seem correct that foster care and/or adoption should NOT become a means to eradicate the religion or the culture of the child needing a new home. If that means prioritizing Black children with Black families, or American Indian children with American Indian families, or Jewish children with Jewish families, then I see nothing wrong with this.

Now, if the specific child being processed through this Christian foster care/adoption agency was born to Jewish parents, then I agree that it would be wrong for other Jewish familes to be prevented from adopting that child. But to assure the religion/culture of an orphaned child.... isn't that something today which being demanded all the time---especially from minority groups?

 

[Bodi]

These guys look a little sketchy... denying them might have been based more on that and an excuse of religion was made so it was not discrimination.

 

[Grand Mal]

The two are not exclusive. In fact the vast majority of American Jews are completely secular and surveys have shown they don’t practice the Jewish faith in any meaningful way

Or because they’re not Christians

It is clearly Christians being targeted, and I doubt these “jews” are wearing the whole black hat and suit with long braided hair. Me thinks they’re the secular kind of Jew. It’s probably not Ben Shapiro trying to adopt here

Oh, we're guessing are we? Okay,my guess is those Christians dont give a damn about the religious or cultural heritage of the kids in their charge. Muslims, Jews, Native Americans, all are grist for the Christian mill. This exchange...

They were discriminated against because they're Jews.

Or because they’re not Christians

...pretty much sums up your attitude to the topic. They were discriminated against because they arent Christians.
Christians might love being targetted but unfortunately thats not the case here.

 

[Grand Mal]

These guys look a little sketchy... denying them might have been based more on that and an excuse of religion was made so it was not discrimination.

View attachment 67397711

That much plaid, they're hiding something for sure!

 

[Grand Mal]

You shouldn’t be protected from discrimination except in rare cases.

Many people get taxpayer funding for various reasons. “I pay taxes” does not entitle you to unlimited services from an entity that may recieve taxpayer funding. Adoption agencies can set discriminatory policies in the best interests of the child. A Christian child should be placed into a home within that faith, just like black children should be placed into a black home if a suitable one is present. If I had a child I wouldn’t want them given away to a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist family to be stripped of their tradition.

Yes.

You dont know that thats whats happening here. If you say a Christian adoption agency would put a Jewish child into a Jewish home youre just playing your game in reverse. They discriminate negatively based on religion. They wont put any child, no matter whatever their religious or cultural heritage, into a Christian home. They said to this couple that they had, "...made the decision several years ago to only provide adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our belief system."

 

[bluesmoke]

Literally no one forced the couple to use a religious adoption agency. They could have gone with a secular agency, but they didn't.

That's not the point. They are being forced to use a secular agency for religious reasons of the adoption agency of choice. They are being forced to submit to a religion.

 

[bluesmoke]

There is no such thing.

No. There is such a thing as imposing a religious belief upon others. In this case, the prospective client is being forced to go elsewhere as their burden in doing so.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

These guys look a little sketchy... denying them might have been based more on that and an excuse of religion was made so it was not discrimination.

View attachment 67397711

I said the couple weren’t real jews and were just white atheists and man was I right.

I don’t see any Yarmulke.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No. There is such a thing as imposing a religious belief upon others. In this case, the prospective client is being forced to go elsewhere as their burden in doing so.

That is not imposition of belief

 

[bluesmoke]

That is not imposition of belief

It is if imposing a burden due to religious belief.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It is if imposing a burden due to religious belief.

That’s not imposing religious belief however.

Banning excessive interest rates, which many states do, is imposing a burden based on religious belief. It’s also perfectly constitutional

 

[SMTA]

I said the couple weren’t real jews and were just white atheists and man was I right.

I don’t see any Yarmulke.

You are always quite in bigoted racist in all of your posts

 

[Lisa]

That’s not imposing religious belief however.

Banning excessive interest rates, which many states do, is imposing a burden based on religious belief. It’s also perfectly constitutional

Banning loan sharks/predatory interest rates is not based on a religious belief.

As long as they are using taxpayer money and those children are not all catholic then the Catholic church must obey the US Constitution's separation of church and state. They cannot discriminate against members of other religions/sects or potential parents who are not religious.

 

[bluesmoke]

That’s not imposing religious belief however.

Banning excessive interest rates, which many states do, is imposing a burden based on religious belief. It’s also perfectly constitutional

I don't see any relationship btx banning excessive interest rates and religion. Please clarify.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't see any relationship btx banning excessive interest rates and religion. Please clarify.

States that have usury laws passed them because of Christian belief that Usury is wrong.

 

[NWRatCon]

I don't see any relationship btx banning excessive interest rates and religion. Please clarify.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the law, history, religion,... hell, just about everything. It's like arguing that prohibitions against murder are "based on the Ten Commandments" and other such nonsense. No, it's just a good idea. Duh.

Anything to deflect the thread. Please don't play along.

 

[Peacenik]

Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.

I hope they win.

I have had plenty of this proselytizing through the government.

One thing that bugs me is seeing crosses by the highway where somebody died in a traffic wreck. On public land!

Like Christians are the only people that die in traffic?

Commemorate them, fine. Put some flowers and a picture. How crass to spread religion around over a tragedy.

Keep your religion off our public lands.

Get it off the money, get it out of the pledge. Enough, already!

 

[NWRatCon]

I have had plenty of this proselytizing through the government.

Amen, Brother!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Well, let's just forget about that part... (/s/ Sam Alito)

 

[yankintx]

You can't have religious freedom when religion is deciding the freedom.

A simple yet profound statement.

 

[Luce]

I said the couple weren’t real jews and were just white atheists and man was I right.

I don’t see any Yarmulke.

What possible difference would that make, even if it was true?

 

[Luce]

Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.

This one is easy.

Cut their funding, and reassign the children to adoption agencies that are capable of doing their job.

 

[bomberfox]

Whelp fundies this is what happens when you use religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate.

 

[Luce]

@Grim17 was just asking if the right wingers and/or Christian nationalists had ever discriminated in such a fashion.

Well, Grim, here you are.

 

[bluesmoke]

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the law, history, religion,... hell, just about everything. It's like arguing that prohibitions against murder are "based on the Ten Commandments" and other such nonsense. No, it's just a good idea. Duh.

Anything to deflect the thread. Please don't play along.

One chance to provide clarity relevant to the thread.